[BrianOnHN]

Then why send these people to high-schools either? Bring them in at the college level, and get more people into college.

If you had your shit together in highschool, then great, that's why you went to Harvard/stanford etc.

But most people don't. So save the extra beneficial instruction for when they are mature enough to benefit from it.

And if you want that extra help sooner, then you sound capable enough to find it on your own.

[iguy]

Because it's a mixture. Some rowdy kids are just bored sick, and can't see any point in memorising crap for another stupid exam. These same people might really benefit (let's say, HN) finding out there is more to coding than their teacher knows about, and that you can get paid to do it. Finding out that school-teachers aren't the only adult role models.

But the guy who might show them that might, this semi-retired engineer, may not have the skills or the desire to do crowd control, well enough and long enough to get through.

[BrianOnHN]

> desire to do crowd control

I wonder what % of people don't go back to teach because of that.

I bet it's a small number. In reality, the reasons are probably even more selfish.

If "crowd control" is such a problem, I'd like to know what the people that cite that reason are doing to produce video-courses that could provide much of the same value.

[iguy]

Anecdotally, all my over-educated friends who tried to take up teaching (after something else) gave up. Citing this reason, and sometimes the level of bureaucracy.

[BrianOnHN]

> over-educated

That part makes me think of "those who fail, teach." Which could be a confounding factor in your anecdotal assumption that they failed at teaching because of the X, and not b/c they're failures...

And in an affluent area, school behaviors are barely an issue. Teachers that fail here, think schools with a PTA, these people will fail anywhere. Impoverished schools are another story, as in multiple kids acting out from abuses at home, on a daily basis. Having to recognize and help kids who aren't even getting their basic needs met. Only real badass teachers last in the impoverished schools, and they are the ones that make a real difference, literally heroes without capes.

What people here on HN are calling babysitting is more like the one opportunity a child gets to scream for help from often horrific abuses at home.

Might that affect your perfect gifted child's one-on-one time with a public school teacher? Give me a break.

[iguy]

Failure is a pretty strong word, they all went on to do other things, better paid, they had options. They tried to teach, for a while, because they wanted to.

My point is just that they all underestimated how difficult controlling a pack of teenagers was going to be, even those who were at nice schools "with a PTA". That's what I think was meant by "babysitting" above (not my choice of word), it's a real hurdle. As you seem to agree.

I'm dubious that the world is short of video courses. But many people do miss out on human interactions which could show them other paths.

[BrianOnHN]

> they imagined more focus on the subject matter

Ie, "listen to me, the distinguished lecturer."

Non-educators, those not explicitly trained in how to educate, don't understand there is more to teaching than lecturing.

In a non-adult setting, good luck trying to get away with any lecturing at all.

Plenty of adults can't even converse without looking at their phone, so I doubt lecture-style works for them either.

If a "grizzled engineer" wants to make an impact in education, the best way is to teach a building block skill thoroughly and effectively, and on a platform that's free and easy to access. Leave the public school teachers to do they're jobs, they're actually way more competent than they get credit or compensated for.